User Ownership: Difference between revisions

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Undo revision 18355 by Ownut (Talk))
(Fix typo (We must protect the Worker's need, as a user, to Consume.))
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Mode of production and ownership proposed by [[Patrick Anderson]], which is inspired by the philosophy behind the [[General Public License]]'''
'''Mode of production and ownership proposed (c. 2007) by [[Patrick Anderson]], which is inspired by the philosophy behind the [[General Public License]]'''


Patrick Anderson aims to apply these ideas to the field of physical production as well.
Patrick Anderson aims to apply these ideas to the field of physical production as well.


==Introduction==


=Introduction=
===Richard Stallman's Ideas===
 
==Richard Stallman's Ideas==


Patrick Anderson:  
Patrick Anderson:  


The GNU GPL is very clear in it’s goal to insure the virtual Means of Production (source code) should be in the hands of the CONSUMERS.
The GNU GPL is very clear in its goal to insure the virtual Means of Production (source code) should be in the hands of the Users.


When RMS speaks of freedom it is always about the User (consumer), not developer, author, producer, worker or owner.
When RMS speaks of freedom it is always about the User (consumer), not developer, author, producer, worker or owner.


For instance, http://GNU.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power.html says “‘''Proprietary software is an exercise of power. Copyright law today grants software developers that power, so they and only they choose the rules to impose on everyone else—a relatively few people make the basic software decisions for everyone, typically by denying their freedom. When users lack the freedoms that define Free Software, they can’t tell what the software is doing, can’t check for back doors, can’t monitor possible viruses and worms, can’t find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can’t fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If it simply isn’t quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can’t help each other improve it''.’”
“‘''With free software, the Users are in control. Most of the time, Users want interoperability, and when the software is free, they get what they want. With non-free software, the developer controls the Users. The developer permits interoperability when that suits the developer; what the Users want is beside the point''.’” -- "Three Minutes with Richard Stallman" - http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,137098-c,freeware/article.html
 
And the recent interview “Three Minutes with Richard Stallman” at http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,137098-c,freeware/article.html says “‘''With free software, the users are in control. Most of the time, users want interoperability, and when the software is free, they get what they want. With non-free software, the developer controls the users. The developer permits interoperability when that suits the developer; what the users want is beside the point''.’”
 
If a “Mode of Production” is defined by who controls the “Means of Production”, then the GNU Mode of Production is one in which the Consumers and NOT the Producers are at the helm.
 


==Patrick Anderson's proposals==
If a “Mode of Production” is defined by who controls the “Means of Production”, then the GNU Mode of Production is one in which the Users are at the helm, and **not** the Workers.


The GNU [[General Public License]] relies upon initial investing owners (developers) ''choosing'' to retain Copyright so they may apply the constraint: '''[[Virtual Sources]] must be made available "at cost" to any User with whom you share or trade [[Object]]s'''.  This [[Inter-Owner Trade Agreement]] is then perpetually held in place by [[Instance]] owners (anyone owning a ''copy'' of that [[Object]]).
===Patrick Anderson's proposals===


The physical realm is much different, but a variation of these concepts can be applied using regular private property law.
A GNU profit sharing strategy.


The GNU [[General Public Law]] similarly relies upon initial investing owners (often called developers by the way) to ''choose'' to add a constraint to any [[Object]] (whether physical or not) of: '''All [[Profit]] (and in fact any amount paid above cost) must be treated as an investment for that paying customer in more [[Physical Sources]] for the future production of that same kind of [[Object]] so that competition is perfected and democracy becomes direct.'''  Wages are one of those costs.  Wages are not profit, they are payment for work as arranged between current owners and potential workers.
The GNU [[General Public License]] uses Copyright law to ensure every [[Object]] User gains *their own 'copy' of* the **immaterial** ``Sources of Production``.


See our entry on the [[Inter-Owner Trade Agreement]].
Similarly, the GNU [[General Public Law]] uses Property law to ensure every [[Object]] User gains *their own 'copy' of* the **material** ``Sources of Production``, and especially '''land'''.


This is done by slowly vesting property ownership of Sources (real estate, water rights, and other licenses or patents over finite resources) to the Users who paid that profit.


=Description=
As Users gain ownership of the material Sources, they regain control of that production and no longer pay financial returns to other owners.


User Ownership is a special case in economics that has some interesting properties:
==Observations==
User Ownership is a special case in economics that has some interesting properties.


* Rent and Profit *diasappear* as goods and services are **preallocated** to the Users who will use them.
* Abundance and real solutions are goal and never thought 'destructive'.
* Abundance and real solutions are goal and never thought 'destructive'.
* Scarcity is not sought and those physical sources are real insurance.
* Scarcity is not sought and those physical Sources are real insurance.
 
* Work is not a goal, and can be safely reduced as we already own.
* Unemployment is not a problem, it is the second goal.
* Prices can be ignored because the product is never sold (except surplus).
* Work is to be eliminated as a hurdle on the road to riches.
* Entire supply chains can be localized and governed by the people who need that production.
 
* Low prices are always good and tend toward cost.
* Profit is meaningless except as consumer growth.
 
* Entire production chains are finally localized.
* Development is solved instead of being sustained.


==FAQ==
: Q: What is the big deal about User ownership?
: A: When Users are Owners, they regain control of production and rent seems to disappear.


As an example, when you pay for the costs of copying an apple, which would
: Q: Why are you trying to protect the User instead of the Worker?
you say is better:
: A: We are all Users.
 
1. An arbitrary, non-working group of Owners control the care (they may
spray the orchard with dangerous chemicals) of those Sources, and can
charge a price above cost to profit limited only by other competing
Owners.
 
2. The Owners are the collective Workers that plant, water, maintain
and harvest the fruit.  They control the Sources similarly to the Owners
in #1, but at least they can pay themselves a higher Wage.  The consumer
still has little control, is not allowed to do any of the work himself,
and is still at the mercy of those who Own.
 
3. The perfect* Mode where the collective Owners are the Consumers
themselves.  They can make the copies themselves (tend their portion of
the orchard in the manner they see fit - and within the constraint of
realistic divisibility), or they may hire others to work for them, but
either way we (the users/consumers) are in complete control.  Such a mode
also causes Price to be the same as Cost, as Profit has no meaning when
the consumer Owns the Sources - or in other words, if the Consumer did pay
profit it, he would be paying himself.
 
(*)Option 3 is not achievable in a perfect or static manner (especially during
the initial growth period) because the consumer may not yet Own the
Sources that were used during the round of production that created that
exact object, but this Mode can always be "approached" by Owners who
choose to apply an inter-owner contract that requires any profit paid by
consumers be an investment in more sources, or toward paying-off some
current investments, and that that those shares become the semi-divisible
property of that very same consumer."
 
=FAQ=
 
'''Please add your own question(s) to the top of this list'''
 
 
: Q: What's the big deal about ownership?
: A: Owners rule.  Private property already insures privacy, but humans also need public property to maximize their economic efficiency.  Representative government is one way to manage joint holdings, and collective private ownership is another way.  The advantage of collective private ownership is the opportunity for the initial investors to add any constraint as a "Term of Use" for that property while retaining full control.
 
 
: Q: Constraint?  Are you saying freedom must be restricted?
: A: It is power that must be bridled so that freedom and abundance can grow through cooperation.  Usury (misdirected profit) relies upon artificial scarcity through power to concentrate larger individual gains while retarding communal growth.  This is the same pattern described by the Nash Equilibrium and can be resolved through a legally binding inter-owner trade agreement that insures each consumer grows according to the investments (profit) that they pay.
 
 
: Q: The market has already chosen capitalism.
: A: The same could be said of feudalism during that age.  The future will prove or disprove the point, but only if we can get booted.  An ecocomics simulation could also help verify or disprove the claim.
 
 
: Q: What do you mean 'booted'?
: A: There must be some initial investment in physical sources by those who are willing to apply this contract.
 
 
: Q: What claim is being made?  That an owner can apply arbitrary restrictions to their property?
: A: The claim is that freedom is determined by access to sources and that access is determined by ownership.  Instead of condemning private ownership, we show how it may be used to apply an agreement that insures the plea for growth (a consumer's payment of price above cost = what usually called profit) is treated as user investment so control remains in (flows to) the hands of the users, even while their choices and membership are dynamic.
 
 
: Q: Isn't scarcity an integral part of a vibrant economy?
: A: Scarcity only increases profit, never wages.  Treating profit as user investment removes that faulty incentive from owner options while very likely increasing wage since the consumer already pays wages + profit in normal capitalism, while this contract drives profit toward zero as price meets cost.
 
 
: Q: But who will invest without profit?
: A: Citizens already invest in public utilities through taxes expecting only product, never profit.  Likewise, commercial product consumers also expect (and receive) only product while paying those costs plus the externality of usury.
 
 
: Q: Why are you trying to protect the consumer instead of the worker?
: A: We are all consumers.
 
 
: Q: But how can you claim workers won't be exploited when they are not the owners, and therefore have no control?
: A: Those workers are also consumers of their own needs.  We must protect their ability to consume, but working is not a need in itself - it is a hurdle to be eliminated on our road to leisure.


: Q: But how can you claim Workers won't be exploited when they are not the owners, and therefore will have no control?
: A: Workers are also Users, of their own needs.  We must protect the Worker's need, as a user, to Consume.
: A: Working (employment) is not a need in itself, and can be safely reduced when Users have sufficient Ownership.


: Q: Are you claiming unemployment is good?
: Q: Are you claiming unemployment is good?
: A: When the owners of physical sources are the only consumers of those objects there is never a concern about automating that production because to do so only decreases the cost of production while eliminate the drudgery of work.  But when the owners are a random set of initial investors seeking to keep profit as some sort of reward, the workers become human resources to be exploited as though they were just another input of production.
: A: Now we must Work to pay Rent.
 
: A: But Rent is zero and Work is not a goal when Land is User-Owned.
 
: Q: We already have competition; there are no true monopolys.
: A: It is true that monopoly is rarely perfect, but neither is competition. Profit also measures monopoly, otherwise why would a consumer ever pay more than cost?
 


: Q: If profit is the problem, then why do non-profits not prevail?
: Q: If profit is the problem, then why do non-profits not prevail?
: A: The payment of profit is not a problem in itself, as it is simply an inverse measure of development. The payment of profit should be allowed; it is only the misapplication of that payment that keeps users from growing.  The trouble is a general form of usury which is the misappropriation of profit by owners which constructs the inverted incentive of artificial scarcity. Non-profit corporations do not solve this problem either because the profit is still not treated as user investment, but is instead "turned into" wages or invested by the current owners in whatever way they see fit as so-called 'representatives' of the users instead of control flowing to those users as real ownership which would allow them to replace board members that attempted to overpay themselves and also implements direct democracy with vote weighted by holdings.
: A: Well, profit may occur whenever a product is sold, but non-profits hide those gains as extra wages or bonuses or other spending.
 
: A: Profit is a symptom of the problem which is property misallocation.
: A: This is easy to prove, since, when the users Own Sources, they do not buy those Products since, they own them already.
: A: Profit does not exist in this scenario because the change-of-ownership at the point-of-sale has been eliminated.
: A: We envision Tickets each user-owner would redeem to account for the goods and services they claim.


: Q: May I charge money for Free Objects?
: Q: May I charge money for Free Objects?
: A: Yes, the GPL is a ''commercial grade'' free (as in freedom) trade agreement.
: A: Yes, the GPL is a ''commercial grade'' free (as in freedom) trade agreement.


: Q: How much can I charge for a GPL Object?
: Q: How much can I charge for a GPL Object?
: A: There is no limit.  Auctions may maximize object prices to speed growth while reverse-auctions will minimize the cost called wage.
: A: There is no limit, but some profit must buy even more land which finally vests to the Users who paid it.
 
 
: Q: How much of the price can I claim as costs (including wages)?
: A: There is no limit.  Profit is separated from wages as the number of owners per physical source increases and workers are hired explicitly instead of the labor being 'assumed' by the owners who may overpay themselves.  Specialization clarifies this distinction and ties worker wage more directly to performance.


: Q: How much of the price can I claim as costs?
: A: There is no limit.
: A: Profit separates from wages as the number of co-owners increases.
: A: The separation between profit and wages is arbitrary when the Sources are owned by a single person, and that person does all of the Work.


: Q: Can I apply the GNU General Public Law to a physical source such as a rototiller and then rent it to customers?
: Q: Can I apply the GNU General Public Law to a physical source such as a rototiller and then rent it to customers?
: A: Yes, in this case the 'Object' becomes the ephemeral 'Objective' of that User or the rivalrous slice of time as the duration of that rent.
: A: Yes, in this case the 'Object' becomes the ephemeral 'Objective' of that User or the rivalrous slice of time as the duration of that rent.


: Q: So if a car factory were under such a contract, anyone could just wander in off the street and try to build their own automobile?
: Q: So if a car factory were under such a contract, anyone could just wander in off the street and try to build their own automobile?
: A: Shareholders will protect their investments from vandals and wear as usual by requiring a rent be met, and may also require such things as tests to qualify or insurance for coverage.  The restrictions they impose are arbitrary and there is no limit, but the currency issued against those physical sources will decrease as users assess them as less valuable if these claims are too high.
: A: Owners and co-owners will still want to protect their investments, so will often require tests to qualify.  Owners may impose arbitrary conditions.
 
 
: Q: Why are you doing this, why not just maximize you own profit?
: A: Because if we don't stop these profiteering feudalists they will eventually hire vassals to come take all of our resources for the purpose of stopping our production.  That is the ultimate problem with allowing any form of usury: it finally creates war to destroy capital for the purpose of increasing usury.
 


: Q: Why would owners tie their own hands in this way to forgo profit?
: Q: Why would owners tie their own hands in this way to forgo profit?
: A: So the physical sources of production (such as land, water, plants, animals, buildings, tools) that they need for production are available to them without paying tribute to another.
: A: So the physical Sources of production (such as land, water, plants, animals, buildings, tools) needed for production are available to them without paying tribute to others.
 


: Q: But isn't profit the prime motivator of human society?
: Q: But isn't profit the prime motivator of human society?
: A: Product is the only valid purpose of production. A portion of profit, interest and rent are initially meaningful and useful for reclaiming the labor expended, resources lent or opportunity lost, but these are almost always taken to far, and at the instant that an owner is paid just because they won't let the users have "at cost" access to the sources they are 'earning' usury. Most humans only expect to get paid for the work they do, but after they begin hiring employees, and as their business grows they see there is much to be made by disallowing source access. We must eliminate those externalizing actions before the beast destroys the entire earth in the name of usury.
: A: Product should be the only motivation for production.
 
: A: Profit measures the User's lack of Source Ownership.
: A: When Users own Sources, they own that future production without purchase.


=Discussion=
==Discussion==
Patrick Anderson:
Patrick Anderson:
It is the difficulty in organizing large collective investments that keeps Users (Consumers) from Owning the Physical Sources of Production that would allow us to then have "at cost" access and full control of the Objects of that Production.
It is the difficulty in organizing large collective investments that keeps Users (Consumers) from Owning the material Sources of Production.


The idea is: An initial group of potential Users joint purchase some physical Sources and voluntarily put that property under a contract that requires Owners treat all Profit each object trade be an investment for that new user into User Ownership of more physical Sources in that same corporation.
Can we buy the land and tools to make the homes and food we need?


This causes growth to wax and wane according to the demand of those consumers.
Can we co-own tiny private cities to ensure our future production?
 
* User demand includes covering the costs of the last round of production.
* User demand also contains the desire to grow represented as profit.
* User lack of demand is the user's desire to shrink or sell by not paying costs.
 
 
==== Beginnings of attempt to prove User Ownership is optimally efficient
 
: 1. One source owner, one object consumer
: 2. One source owner, multi object consumer.
: 3. Multi source owner, one object consumer.
: 4. Multi source owner, multi object consumer.
 
 
=More Information=
 
Please see http://EcoComics.org for a more thorough analysis
 
"The Comical Ecology Of Political Economy - or how the poor fund the war" at http://EcoComics.org/ecocom.html


Can we buy land with some % of profit, to vest to the Users who pay?


[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:User_Owned]]
[[Category:Business_Models]]
[[Category:Change_Theory]]
[[Category:Community_Owned]]
[[Category:Encyclopedia]]
[[Category:Encyclopedia]]
[[Category:Business]]
[[Category:Governance]]
[[Category:Governance]]
[[Category:IP]]
[[Category:IP]]
[[Category:Peereconomy]]

Latest revision as of 17:25, 1 November 2025

Mode of production and ownership proposed (c. 2007) by Patrick Anderson, which is inspired by the philosophy behind the General Public License

Patrick Anderson aims to apply these ideas to the field of physical production as well.

Introduction

Richard Stallman's Ideas

Patrick Anderson:

The GNU GPL is very clear in its goal to insure the virtual Means of Production (source code) should be in the hands of the Users.

When RMS speaks of freedom it is always about the User (consumer), not developer, author, producer, worker or owner.

“‘With free software, the Users are in control. Most of the time, Users want interoperability, and when the software is free, they get what they want. With non-free software, the developer controls the Users. The developer permits interoperability when that suits the developer; what the Users want is beside the point.’” -- "Three Minutes with Richard Stallman" - http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,137098-c,freeware/article.html

If a “Mode of Production” is defined by who controls the “Means of Production”, then the GNU Mode of Production is one in which the Users are at the helm, and **not** the Workers.

Patrick Anderson's proposals

A GNU profit sharing strategy.

The GNU General Public License uses Copyright law to ensure every Object User gains *their own 'copy' of* the **immaterial** ``Sources of Production``.

Similarly, the GNU General Public Law uses Property law to ensure every Object User gains *their own 'copy' of* the **material** ``Sources of Production``, and especially land.

This is done by slowly vesting property ownership of Sources (real estate, water rights, and other licenses or patents over finite resources) to the Users who paid that profit.

As Users gain ownership of the material Sources, they regain control of that production and no longer pay financial returns to other owners.

Observations

User Ownership is a special case in economics that has some interesting properties.

  • Rent and Profit *diasappear* as goods and services are **preallocated** to the Users who will use them.
  • Abundance and real solutions are goal and never thought 'destructive'.
  • Scarcity is not sought and those physical Sources are real insurance.
  • Work is not a goal, and can be safely reduced as we already own.
  • Prices can be ignored because the product is never sold (except surplus).
  • Entire supply chains can be localized and governed by the people who need that production.

FAQ

Q: What is the big deal about User ownership?
A: When Users are Owners, they regain control of production and rent seems to disappear.
Q: Why are you trying to protect the User instead of the Worker?
A: We are all Users.
Q: But how can you claim Workers won't be exploited when they are not the owners, and therefore will have no control?
A: Workers are also Users, of their own needs. We must protect the Worker's need, as a user, to Consume.
A: Working (employment) is not a need in itself, and can be safely reduced when Users have sufficient Ownership.
Q: Are you claiming unemployment is good?
A: Now we must Work to pay Rent.
A: But Rent is zero and Work is not a goal when Land is User-Owned.
Q: If profit is the problem, then why do non-profits not prevail?
A: Well, profit may occur whenever a product is sold, but non-profits hide those gains as extra wages or bonuses or other spending.
A: Profit is a symptom of the problem which is property misallocation.
A: This is easy to prove, since, when the users Own Sources, they do not buy those Products since, they own them already.
A: Profit does not exist in this scenario because the change-of-ownership at the point-of-sale has been eliminated.
A: We envision Tickets each user-owner would redeem to account for the goods and services they claim.
Q: May I charge money for Free Objects?
A: Yes, the GPL is a commercial grade free (as in freedom) trade agreement.
Q: How much can I charge for a GPL Object?
A: There is no limit, but some profit must buy even more land which finally vests to the Users who paid it.
Q: How much of the price can I claim as costs?
A: There is no limit.
A: Profit separates from wages as the number of co-owners increases.
A: The separation between profit and wages is arbitrary when the Sources are owned by a single person, and that person does all of the Work.
Q: Can I apply the GNU General Public Law to a physical source such as a rototiller and then rent it to customers?
A: Yes, in this case the 'Object' becomes the ephemeral 'Objective' of that User or the rivalrous slice of time as the duration of that rent.
Q: So if a car factory were under such a contract, anyone could just wander in off the street and try to build their own automobile?
A: Owners and co-owners will still want to protect their investments, so will often require tests to qualify. Owners may impose arbitrary conditions.
Q: Why would owners tie their own hands in this way to forgo profit?
A: So the physical Sources of production (such as land, water, plants, animals, buildings, tools) needed for production are available to them without paying tribute to others.
Q: But isn't profit the prime motivator of human society?
A: Product should be the only motivation for production.
A: Profit measures the User's lack of Source Ownership.
A: When Users own Sources, they own that future production without purchase.

Discussion

Patrick Anderson: It is the difficulty in organizing large collective investments that keeps Users (Consumers) from Owning the material Sources of Production.

Can we buy the land and tools to make the homes and food we need?

Can we co-own tiny private cities to ensure our future production?

Can we buy land with some % of profit, to vest to the Users who pay?

Retrieved from "https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=User_Ownership&oldid=146580"